David Irving and Freedom of Speech

Irving's opinions are vile, and his arguments about the Holocaust are ludicrous. But he doesn't belong in prison.

Funny people, the Austrians. If you're Kurt Waldheim -- a former Nazi military officer linked to a genocidal massacre during World War II -- they elect you president. But if you're David Irving -- a British author who claimed that there never was a Nazi genocide during World War II -- they throw you in the slammer.

On second thought, not funny at all. Austria disgraced itself when it elected Waldheim president in 1986, apparently unconcerned by the revelation that he had served in a German military unit responsible for mass murder in the Balkans and been listed after the war as a wanted criminal by the UN War Crimes Commission. In a very different way it disgraced itself again last week, when a Vienna court sentenced Irving, a racist and an anti-Semite, to three years in prison for denying that the Nazis annihilated 6 million European Jews.

Irving is a man of great intellectual gifts who devoted his life to a grotesque and evil project: rehabilitating the reputation of Hitler and the Third Reich. Necessarily, that meant denying the Holocaust and ridiculing those who suffered in it, and Irving has long done so with relish. "I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend," he told a Canadian audience in 1991. "There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around -- in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least -- I'm going to form an association of Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars."

Presumably Irving had in mind people like my father, whose arm bears to this day the number A-10502, tattooed there in blue ink on May 28, 1944, the day he and his family were transported to Auschwitz. My father's parents, David and Leah Jakubovic, and his youngest brother and sister, Alice, 8, and Yrvin, 10, were not tattooed; Jews deemed too old or too young to work were sent immediately to the gas chambers. His teenage siblings, Zoltan and Franceska, were tattooed and, like him, put to work as slave laborers. Zoltan was killed within days; Franceska lasted a few months. Of the seven members of the Jakubovic family sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1944, only my father was alive in the spring of 1945.

He is a repugnant, hate-filled liar, but as a matter of law and public policy, Irving's sentence is deplorable.

So on a personal level, the prospect of David Irving spending his next three years in a prison cell is something over which I will lose no sleep. He is a repugnant, hate-filled liar, who even as a child (so his twin brother told the Telegraph, a British daily) was enamored of the Nazis and had a pronounced cruel streak.

But as a matter of law and public policy, Irving's sentence is deplorable. The opinions he expressed are vile, and his arguments about the Holocaust -- perhaps the most comprehensively researched and documented crime in history -- are ludicrous. But governments have no business criminalizing opinions and arguments, not even those that are vile or ludicrous. To be sure, freedom of speech is not absolute; laws against libel, death threats, and falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater are both reasonable and necessary. But free societies do not throw people in prison for giving offensive speeches or spouting historical lies.

Austria, the nation that produced Hitler and cheered the Anschluss, may well believe that its poisoned history requires a strong antidote. Punishing anyone who "denies, grossly trivializes, approves, or seeks to justify" the Holocaust or other Nazi crimes may seem a small price to pay to keep would-be totalitarians and hatemongers at bay. But a government that can make the expression of Holocaust denial a crime today can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow.

Americans, for whom the First Amendment is a birthright, should understand this instinctively. "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought," wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1929. "Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."

It is popular in some circles to argue that the United States should do certain things -- adopt single-payer health insurance, abolish capital punishment, etc. -- to conform to the practice in other democracies. Those who find that a persuasive argument might consider that Irving is behind bars today because Austria doesn't have a First Amendment. Neither do Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, or Switzerland -- all of which have made Holocaust denial a crime.

"Freedom for the thought we hate" is never an easy sell, but without it there can be no true liberty. David Irving is a scurrilous creep, but he doesn't belong in prison. Austria should find a way to set him free -- not for his sake, but for Austria's.

Visitor Comments: 90

People have intelligence and emotions and usually emotion overrides intelligence. How else to explain that Naziism was promoted from its start by the German universities?

The fewer Irvings that are around to indoctrinate the emotional, the better.

Jonathan Rosenblum argues persuasively. Israel has been acknowledged as having the safest air travel in the world, but at the price of inconvenience to the passengers. That applies to the Palestinians waiting at checkpoints as well.

Rosenblum describes this as a victory for the terrorists.

Let them gloat over their victory. I would sooner be assured that suicide bombers have been prevented from boarding my plane, than lose sleep over the infringement of their constitutional rights.

(89)
Lorral,
August 26, 2012 8:05 PM

I can't believe that we have such bleeding hearts in society these days. Austria is right in locking up this guy. We are all accountable before God on what we say and do. Why not with man as well? To deny the Holocaust, is to deny the 6 million innocent Jewish people who lost their lives to a truly monstrous act. Yes we should be allowed free speech, to a certain extent, but there are certain things that are left better unsaid. We are not free to say anything we want to say. It's called human decency, in which we have so little of these days. Maybe if this guy spends the next three years in prison, it may not change his views, but hopefully it will help him think twice about things he knows nothing about, and keep his mouth shut, and his views to himself, after all we are not free to hurt other people.

(88)
Zvi,
August 18, 2012 5:18 AM

Lying can be a crime IMO

Ok, time for another opinion: If Jacoby had written lies about Irving (or anyone else), he could potentially be sued and/or fired from his job as a journalist – i.e. punished; for merely writing/telling a lie. Irving is also telling a lie, although perhaps only verbally. Does it not seem consistent that Irving be punished? Is shouting fire in a crowed theater (when there is no fire) a lie that endangers the citizens who hear the lie? Well, Jacoby agrees that lying about a theater fire is clearly wrong. I have seen enough numbers on arms to be thoroughly convinced that the holocaust/shoa was a fact. If I write that the Titanic sunk not from a collision with an iceberg rather a leaky hull that may be a lie however it is not a propaganda tool. I believe that holocaust denial is a form of hate crime as it is a lie intended to promote hate toward a particular group.

(87)
Steve Skeete,
December 6, 2010 8:24 AM

There is a part of me that wants to disagreee with Mr. Jacoby. This part says that people like David Irvine do more harm than good. The lies they tell are hurtful to the individuals and families who suffered under Hitler's tyranny and barbarism. Often I feel as if glorifying Hitler and the "Third Reich" is almost a crime in itself.
However, another side of me says it is a very dangerous thing when we begin locking people away simply because we do not agree with their outrageous views.
What do we do then with the David Irvine's of this world? We answer them, logically and conclusively. We rebut everyone of their arguments one by one. In the case of the holocaust we still have exhibit "A", those who were the direct recipients of Hitler's brutality. Like someone said "facts are stubborn things" and they do not go away so easily.
My fear, like that of Mr. Jacoby's is that sometimes the truth can be just as inconvenient as lies. So what happens when the powers that be do not like the truth we are telling? Will we go to prison too?

(86)
Reizl Fink,
November 21, 2010 6:01 PM

Legitimiizing holocaust denial

Irving should have been ignored.
The fact that he was persecuted and prosecuted for his utterances made him more brazen.and caused others like him.to take up his "cause"
Had he been ignored, he would have never been "news" and
his holocaust denials would have stopped.in its tracks.

(85)
Anonymous,
April 21, 2006 12:00 AM

Those who do not know history...

I find this very disturbing..There is a saying that says 'Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it...' Remember who has 'fallen' as a result of WW2 and those who were the victims..for it was by the victims' pain and suffering we have the state of Israel..our homeland.

(84)
Jose Pineda,
April 3, 2006 12:00 AM

Couldn't agree more

I for one completely agree with the author. Some things Irving says are indeed worth investigating. He has profound knowledge about the WW2, and he is partly right when he says investigating about Holocaust has turned into something of a taboo.

In the end, I think people like Irving SHOULD NOT be sent to jail merely for expressing their extremely unneutral points of view about Shoa - that sends a bad message to neo-nazis over there: that their ideas can't be fought intelectually, that their hatered and lies can't be put down with FACTS. That people like Irving need to be put to jail for expressing what the powers-that-be describe as "bad ideas" only reinforce neo-nazis self-perception.

No, Irving may be self-delusional and opinionated to the extreme, but he must be shut up with arguments about hard facts, not with a legal fight. Otherwise, Austrian law is only making a martyr for these people.

By the way, Simon Wiesenthal once wrote in his book "Justice, not vengeance" that he felt sometimes Holocaust surviving Jews such as him didn't remember they weren't alone in the camps. He felt not enough was done especially for Gypsies, who still are regarded as less valuable than garbage in most Western countries and who he felt have not received as much compensation nor help from governments as Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses or Poles have...

(83)
Trevor SPILL,
March 16, 2006 12:00 AM

As a non-Jew and a Christian, I can understand the absolute anger, hatred and repulsion many Jews have for a man like David Irving. It is hurtful beyond belief to listen to his theories about the Holocaust, when Jewish people have family members who have suffered terribly and some who have died.

As someone not personally involved, can I offer my reflections? Ultimately, God is his judge and we can only hand this kind of person over to God, who alone can handle our understandable anger. Perhaps one day he will repent of all he has said, but until that day happens, we can release all the angry emotions we feel to our Heavenly Father, who listens, understands and cares about our hurt. In that way we find a release in our own spirits and are free from a man like David Irving.

Best wishes,

Margaret Spill

(82)
Anonymous,
March 13, 2006 12:00 AM

Bs"d
Then I assume the author would agree that if the opportunity arose, Hitler also should not have been imprisoned for expressing his 'freedom of speech' by rallying his countrymen into a frenzy over the 'Jewish vermin'? As Jews we know that words can be more deadly than guns and this argument holds no more water than to allow known violent criminals to own guns to insure that some day guns won't be taken from the police. It is high time that society began distinguishing evil from good instead of muddling around the bogs of moral relativism. Kudos to Austria--for a change.

(81)
Jeremy Roberts,
March 13, 2006 12:00 AM

Ironic... isn't it?

How ironic that neo-Nazis, and those who support Hitler's actions, are those claiming that holocaust denial is not a crime. Surely, as the Nazis 'committed' the holocaust, why do those who support the Nazis 'insult' Hitler, by saying they didn't commit what they set out to do.
Confusing?!

(80)
s.nusenbaum,
March 12, 2006 12:00 AM

are we the ACLU ?

I really believe we Jews have priorities to pursue other than protecting anti-Semites' constitutional rights. Lets not convert Aish into an associate-like ACLU lawyers club. Our people are too many Jew identifying with ideologies hateful of Jews and Israel and not educated enough in our rights. Anti-Semites like Irving somehow are always able to take care of themselves usually at our expense. So when they are finally held accountable - what impells you to try to help them out? Free speech rights? How about Jewish existence rights! Duh -

(79)
Anonymous,
March 12, 2006 12:00 AM

As difficult as it is, I must agree with Mr. Jacoby. How easy it is to condemn something that is distasteful to you, and a major problem to acknowkledge what someone else does or says (or even thinks) as that person's right, so long as he or she does no physical harm or prevents another person from doing (or thinking or saying) the opposite of what you do (or think or say).

A frequent expresion--I don't recall who said it first--is "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" is the essence of all of our freedoms. The ability to choose however we wish to live can easily be traced to the logic ot this principle.

If I cannot say what and how I feel or think about any subject (provided, of course, that I don't actually do any harm), how can I be sure that what I do may not offend someone, or even violate some law?

As long as the First Amendment (and all the others) remain intact, so will our freedom. As soon as even one breaks down, so goes our freedom.

(78)
Lewis Pettengill,
March 11, 2006 12:00 AM

I believe Irving should spend some time in jail. It wont change his hatred but responsebility and justuce go hand in hand. Free speeach didn't exist in Germany either and look where that led. Free speech without responsibility for what is said is propaganda, as we have seen in the recent colorado incedence (and in a geography class).

(77)
Elias Ghosalkar,
March 10, 2006 12:00 AM

Justice was done at last

David Irving deserves to be punished and many others who share his views deserve the same treatment. Let us not confuse ourselves out here. The golden rule for civilization should be to uphold the values of freedom and liberty, having said this I think 'If there exists Freedom without laws, you have chaos and anarchy'. One should never be allowed to spread lies and harted under the garb of free speech. One should not be allowed to preach harted under the pretext that they are his own personal views cause it will prove to be a threat to the very existence of our civilization. One has to abide by the law of not spreading social unrest and disharmony. The greatest right to be preserved is the right to a peaceful & respectful life for every individual and if there is someone who wishes to deliberately spread lies and incite harted under the garb of free speech, he should be stopped.
I hope to see such judgements more often around the world. I am sorry to say this but Jeffy has got it all wrong and mixed it all up. I dont see clarity of thought in this view.

Barukh Hashem
Elias Ghosalkar (India - Mumbai)

(76)
Steven,
March 10, 2006 12:00 AM

freedom of speech vs. truth

First of all, I must tell you that I believe that holocaust was done by Nazis and they killed 6 million people (their ethinical background doesn't matter, they were human beings!) in concentration camps.
But I think the truth must NOT be defended by law, the truth must be faced with this foolish ideas about Hitler as hero of german nation and holocaust denial.
The truth must be defended by facts in open discussion with its opposition.
Steven, Czech Rep.

(75)
Doris J. Snyder,
March 10, 2006 12:00 AM

Excusing Evil

Mr. Jacoby's opinion is a perfect example of moral relativity, something that is slowly eating away at our civilization. To the moral relativists, there is no good or bad, and mostly everything can be excused away. Defamation is a dangerous and evil act. It's purpose is to diminish and inflame, and it is therefore dangerous to society. To excuse anyone who denies the systematic slaughter of millions of people for no other reason than their religious beliefs or ethnicity, is essentially "bowing to the bully". An act of groveling. There is good, and there is evil. Moral relativists have no ability to recognize eveil. Mr. Jacoby should be ashamed of himself. David Irving belongs in jail, and Mr. Jacoby needs to search his soul to find out why he supports evil. Or perhaps he never learned about loshen hara.

(74)
Anonymous,
March 10, 2006 12:00 AM

He should rot in prison!

I don't understand people like Jeff Jacoby. I think that it is a crime to spout publicly that the terribly grotesque and heinious crimes perpertrated during the Holocaust never happened. That's denying that my grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins (at least 120 people) who were killed in the Holocause never existed!! I think that prison is too good for Irving - they should give him a taste of Holocaust medicine, i.e. torture, burning, burying alive, gassing, etc. and that will shut up the deniers real fast!!

(73)
stephen toone,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Delighted to see him locked up. Many in society today would believe Irving. Never have lived through, or known the historic truth. Such people as Irving have a cauterized conscience. Just like Hitler

(72)
Anonymous,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Too bad

It may be wrong to imprison Irving but there are more important things for us to mwork on.

(71)
David Holdridge,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Jeff Jacoby is right

I couldn't agree more with Jeff Jacoby. The right ti free speech should be inalienable and the fact that Irving chooses to disagree with historical fact is irrelevant:he still has that right and we should defend his right to say it. It seems that some people cannot differentiate between defending his argument and his right to espouse it.

(70)
Tim Klass,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

A valuable service

Kol hakavod to Aish. By republishing Jacoby's article, Aish honors the all-too-often-forgotten notion that free speech is a Jewish value in the spirit of the Talmud. We preserve not only the decision and the opinions that supported it but also those who disagreed. So it is here with this debate. Recognizing the principles that underlie and limit free speech is far more important than what happens to Irving.

(69)
Yakov M.,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Disagree completely

As a Jew who was born and raised in Germany I do believe that the Germans- which ethnically includes the Austrians- have a special obligation not to tolerate Shoa denial. They DO have to make a very strong statement for our and future generations, that historical responsibility must be taken seriously. The perpetrators of the Crime of the Century - which in its implications goes far beyond "usual" genocide - cannot and will not tolerate anyone who belittles this crime.

(68)
Margarita,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Prison and more

He deserved prison and may be more than that. He should do constructive things to
mend the damage he made with his lies. Why , it is not enough to put him just in prison, may be more... I think that we should be very careful before defending liers and murderers. I think we should concentrate our attantion on our needs and real victims. If you ask me every country has its rules, people can choose where they are living and Austria has the right to have different
rules to us.
It saddens me to see how much effort you
use for defending another nasty person

(67)
Jay,
March 9, 2006 12:00 AM

Humanity is Alive

Slightly different reaction than our Moslim brothers to perceived insult.

(66)
Anonymous,
March 8, 2006 12:00 AM

Have to Disagree

Having read the article, I have to disagree. I think for vile cretins like David Irving prison is the best place for them. He has not been butcheres like the Nazis did to people who disagreed to them. He will be out in a couple of years, unlike those put into prisons by the Nazis.

(65)
Zamira R,
March 8, 2006 12:00 AM

What punishment?

#1 What punishment would you give this creep?
#2 Perhaps if Hitler would have been stopped from making all those speeches, things would have been different!!!

(64)
Reuven Rennert,
March 8, 2006 12:00 AM

Austria - then and now

Sir,

as an Austrian Jew who lives in Israel since a few years I have to admit that I was very surprised about the sentence that Irving received, or more about the very fact that he was trialed.
No doubt, this is unusual - unusual for Austria, unusual for a European country that commits itselves nowerdays to the basical laws of freedom that the western world agrees upon.

As You mentioned in Your article, there is a law that prohibits holocaust denial in Austria, and this is the first time ever that I've heaered of the execution of this law.
I want to make a distinction between all the countries that you mentioned that have laws like that on the one side, and Austria and Germany on the other side. The latter and it's people are the origin of the murderuos hatred that spread over Europe, other countries were collaborating but they had at least noteworthy resistance-movements against Nazism and some of them were indeed victims, either of Nazi Germany or of their own fascist leadership.

Anyhow, as much as there is a difference between the historical roles of Germany and Austria and those of e.g. France and the Netherlands, as much should there also be a difference in the drawing of effective conclusions after the holocaust concerning the prevention of a reenactment.

Austria and Germany committed a crime
that was extraordinary awfull in it's cruelty and hatred and the number of victims showed this new level of genocide, therefore I dont't see any problem if there is nowerdays an extraordinary or unusual law concerning a crime that is hopefully unique in world history.
The question is why is there a conviction only now, and why is it David Irving?!
Waldheim was the only example that arrose international attention, but there are numerous more than that.
The Nazi doctor who had a sucessfull carier as scientist after WW2 in Austria and was rewarded with prestigious prices by the Austrian republic after killing countless children during the holocaust, the old men and the skinheads who fly proudly the swastika-flag on the Austrian national holliday, the politician Joerg Haider who praises publicly Hitlers economy politics and attends regularily the annual meeting of the "alliance of former SS - heroes", (the very fact that this alliance exists), and many more examples.
Austria never punished actually someone who was guilty in commiting Nazi-crimes, and so far never punished someone who endorses the repeated comitting of those crimes. They all should get punished, and if all of a sudden one of those dangerous people get's picked out for whatsoever reasons and gets his punishment, we should not be naive and think that Austria found a responsible way of dealing with it's past, but we also should'nt call to free him.
Thank You,
Reuven Rennert

(63)
Dr. A R Chang,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Are we judges?

In one sense is does not matter what other countries do or don't do. They have laws just like the US has laws and must be obeyed.
Having freedom of speech is written in the US constitution, but G-d is His understanding and Word teaches us to love not hurt.

(62)
Aubry,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

He should not be in jail

The best way to stop an idiot is just to ignore him; otherwise, he becomes a martyr for his cause. People might think that the government is "worried about him leaking the truth" or something...It's a messy business.

(61)
Anonymous,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Shake up, wake up!!!

Irvines words are false and inflamnatory, to all gullible mis informed people.. therefore he is crying fire... he is adding fuel to the fire of causless hatred... therefor inciting hate crimes like the one done to Ilan Halumi.. free speech means honest speech.. in Australia there are laws to protect people against Slander, and the victim receives big bucks... there are also laws against racila vilification... free speech that is honest and represents true facts is the only free speech in Australia... thanks Australian Government... you lead the way in free honest speech... I reiterate... free speech is honest speech unhonest speech is libelous, salnderous, and ranting and raving.. and ultimately mischievious and destructibe and harmful for the victim... and believe me... there are plenty of victims of scurrilous slander... witness the auto du feus of mediaeval Europe, the demonisation of the Jews by the European churches.. which fired Hitlers slanderous ravings, and ended in the fires of the concentration camps... surely this free speech proved to be inflamnatory and lethal for its intended victims...

(60)
Anonymous,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Yes, but....

I would agree with your analysis, if not but for one major point. It seems that it is impossible to separate our first ammendment rights. In the U.S., it is not only our right to free speech that is protected, but also it is our right to practice our religion and to have a separation of "church and state." This legal separation is not found in Europe. And, it is also rare to find schools where tolerance and understanding of "others" is taught. This environment is ripe for raising more Irvings--but, jail time alone for these hate mongers will not solve the problem.

(59)
Andy,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

fire

Given his personal family background if Jeff Jacoby says free Irving that works for me, even though I'm still of the opinion that he may be yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

(58)
Z.K.,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Don't agree

Of course freedom of speech is vital, but we know that it has to have its limits. Mr. Jacoby realizes that it cannot be an absolute right. He even mentions that in several countries Holocaust denial is against the law. If it's okay for each free country to define its limits on free speech, why does this Jewish author have a problem with this country (Austria) defining Holocaust denial as illegal? And if somebody in a country where this is against the law goes ahead and does it anyway, why is it wrong to punish him? Did I miss something?? I think that, especially as Jews, we should appreciate the actions taken to stop this dangerous and offensive (to say the least) behavior. I think there's nothing wrong with this horrible man being punished for that, and I even appreciate it.

(57)
Dovid,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Does David Irvine belong in prison.

Debates of this kind are prevalent here in the UK with good people posing arguments both for and against. Britain does not have Holocaust Denial legislation but it does have laws against incitement to racial hatred, under which we Jews are apparently protected. I tend to agree with the argument that Irving does incite violence and hatred with his views and although possibly not directly responsible for acts of violence etc he can be seen as someone who would lead others to committing acts of violence. Was Goebbels organisationally involved in killing Jews? He did however make powerful instruments of properganda to incite others to commit such acts and therefore is as guilty as a Heydrich or a Himmler. Whereas Irving does not come into that category potentially he could cause suffering to others because of his properganda nad deserves to be punished for incitement.

(56)
Avraham,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

Not Every Country Has to Be America's clone

Since when is America's idea of freedom of speech a Divine Command that all nations must hold? Austria is not America and is under different laws, and there it is perfectly legal to improsin Irving. A Jewish website shouldn't present the Constitution as some Divine document that all nations should keep. People should stop wasting their time arguing about freedom of speech and on behalf of criminals and do something positive about the real evils of this world. Give me a break.

(55)
Harise Poland,
March 7, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree with the author of this commentary

I have been wondering if anyone else felt as I did. I do agree that this is being given more importance by the jail sentence, than if we just considered the person a spouting lunatic, or at best, someone who was just plain wrong, as so many are. He is not the only, or the worst to espouse anti semitic beliefs. I feel that often this very specific sort of comment, denial of the Holocaust, or comparing someone to a Nazi, seems to produce a predictable strong reaction, almost overly so, almost Pavlovian. While the outrage is understandable, I feel that it could be more controlled. We can and should rise above these sorts of comments, and concentrate our energies on modern day horrors, that involve current physical threats.

(54)
Paul Slaton,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

I disagree

Sorry, I must disagree. Having lost
my parents and many relatives I have
no sympathies for holocaust deniers
being imprisoned.There is a limit, just as one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

(53)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

There may be a better way than pure punishment

You're right in a way. Pure punishment won't teach a man an education which out of most probable ignorance he slurred and mocked. Unless he was doing those things out of vindictiveness and just wanted to hurt, humiliate, or anger the victims of the holocaust he may be lacking a pure education on the Holocaust. There should be some kind of educational type setting for him instead of just sticking him behind prison walls in the dark or depriving him of darkness, love, affection and the things necessary for people to strive and live. Show him videos, films of the Holocaust. Show him every photo possible there is of the victims and the third reich. Give him all the legal stats such as how many died fighting in each nation, who they were if possible, a list of names also for him to view. Let him possibly meat with a panel of survivors and discuss face to face what took place and his reasons for the slander like or humiliation speeches or his lack of compassion. But 3 yrs just living behind bars well it shows that the country cares enough to do something but personally it may raise up more hate within him and upon exist he may secretly go into some weird collaboration against the Chrisitan gov community as well. He needs to be taught that the 3rd reich not only murdered 6 million jews but Christians, millions of CHristians and the Christians need to be recognized as well as freedom figters and victims of the Holocaust from hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers, to disabled Christian Children in Europe to old Chrisitian folks in Europe, to Afro Europeans, to Ethiopians plus approx fifty million Chrisitians from Russia or so I believe. He needs to see the overall picture not just hear bits and pieces. OK thanx.

(52)
Adam,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Lashon Hara is not a right.

It is North American obsesion that the freedom of speach is the paramount right of the individual. We Jews know the concept of Lashon Hara. And that's only about exchanginf views on others.
Now, enter Irving or Zundel, in Canada.
By excersising their right to the denial of the historic fact, where ove 6 million Jews were anihilated he soils memory of hose who died. In that case, society has a right to curtail the deocratic right to the free speach, which is used to society detriment
Shalom
Adam

(51)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

The real truth IS hard to swallow --it makes you vomit.

If the Austrians have put safeguards into their laws to protect the honor and memory of those so brutally tortured and murdered (with the help and complacency of their own government at time), it was their choice. David Irving only needed to stay out of that country if his needs are to spout out lies and hurt people who have somehow managed to survive the ultimate hurt. Everyone close your eyes, think of someone who you really love, and then visualize the person being dragged away from you by soldiers to be put into a disease infested ghetto and ultimately a gas chamber. I see this vision every time I see or hear the word "holocaust". I only wish it was just propaganda. You're right. The truth is hard to swallow.

(50)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Slander and falsehoods...

Arent their international laws for slander and falsehoods... espescially against an entire peole... you just cant be in a position of power and go on prapagating slander against an entire people in University lectures, the press and books... good on you Austria...

(49)
Aleksandar,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Brilliant point of view. I can only hope that my children could one day display this ammount of mercy. I am sorry for your dead.

Regards,

Aleksandar Jovanovic
Barcelona

(48)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Responsibility is of far greater importance than the freedom of speech

Why is the right of 'Freedom of Speech' always used as an excuse to allow people to preach hate and falsehood? How can Mr Jacoby really believe that Irving can publicize what he likes no matter how offensive? I believe that it is a mistake to allow this so called 'freedom of speech' ideal to excuse people from taking responsibility for their words and actions. As stated in a previous comment, the Torah values responsibility far more than freedom and I am therefore quite surprised that Aish has printed this article. Mr Jacoby has certainly not taken due care when he decided to air his views and his reasoning poses a greater danger to the Jewish people than the hate of our enemies.

(47)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Dispicable freedomof speech is still protected

While I condemn every word said denying the holocaust and glorifying Hitler and his followers, I am more afraid of censorship of ideas than I am of the rantings of a deranged mind.

(46)
morgan-lynn lamberth,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Right.Keep up the good work.

(45)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Forget David Irving

The more you comment about David Irving and his theories the more exposure they gets. Therefore I advocate dropping the whole matter.
Why not talk about Freiliche Zachen?

(44)
reggie wagner,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

I salute you.

First of all, I am NOT a Jew. Not that I wouldn't want to be, or that I would deny it if I were. I admire A Jew's natural considered reaction to the hatred espoused by others: God gave us all voice; who are we to limit the expression of any one voice? It was, after all, a Jewish lawyer, then with the ACLU, who successfully argued for American Nazi Party's right to parade through the streets of Skokie, Illinois.
And so, I salute you. Irving is a creep, someone who wants to blame the failures of his world on a people who had done nothing but live in a portion of that world, and flourish. Sounds oddly familiar. But that same people will rise as one and defend Irving's public right to be a creep. I only saw a Jew demonstrably angry over the public display of anti-semitism once. As a young State Trooper, I was part of a detail that was to protect the American Nazis as they played out a parade permit in Evanston, IL, in 1980. A Jewish war veteran who was present tried to pound me with an American flag/flag pole that day. He was angry for this alone: That our presence legimated such crazed hatred. I admired him for that.

(43)
David Catriel,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

tend to agree, just "tend to agree..."

I am but an ignorant , diletant in the English language butas a Jew , an Inteligent Jew I tend to agree on your thoughts. Freedom of spech is one of the most importants gains of HUMANITY, STILL THERE IS A THIN LINE, A PAINFUL LINE TO WALK BETWEEN "those who hate us" and those " who seek to destroy us" and in every day, every time, every hour we shall judge "what is what"

(42)
Howard J. Schwartz,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Are you aware of the Holocaust denier on the faculty of Northwestern University?
While freedom of speech is key, such dreck masquerading as academic truth must be somehow stopped.
I would be interested in your thoughts on other strategies.

(41)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Let Irving speak and print his invective and let us debate and ridicule his positions in a free and open environment. Prison will only make him a martyr and indicate his beliefs are so valid as to be feared.

(40)
Anonymous,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Hitler was elevared on false rhetoric and slander...

Has anyone outher heard of Slander... there are laws about it... has anyone out there heard of class action... come on Holocaust victims... you can sue Irving for damage...pschological damage is as bad as physical damage, and causes physical damage it is proven.. freedom of speech to defame and maim, to incite hatred and contempt... there are even laws against incitation... wake up you Liberal Jews... you are concurring with Irving.. who is spreading slander and defamation... you would have probably let Hitler speak and cheered him on in the name of free speech...

(39)
Somebody,
March 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Lie defeated the Truth

Recently the outragious cartoons from Denmark came under the Freedom of Speech but on the other hand David captured for the same thing.
The thing is this the world is under Holocaust propaganda so it can not swallow the real truth easily.

(38)
Yosef Ben Shlomo Hakohen,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Not in the Spirit of Purim

The holiday of Purim reminds us of the severe danger of the hateful comments of Haman. It is therefore not in the spirit of Purim for Jeff Jacoby to defend the right of Haman and his modern followers to engage in evil and hateful speech. And such a defense is not in the spirit of the Torah which prohibits speech which degrades or harm others. For according to the Torah, speech is a gift which is to be used to increase and enhance life. It is therefore sad and painful to read this article, especially before Purim.

(37)
Mordipa,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Incitement

Incitement is a word often abused in Israel. If anyone from the left makes a comment that the rightwing finds insulting, it’s called “freedom of speech”. If the rightwing make a comment it’s called “incitement to murder” deserving of a police investigation leading to a possible prison sentence.

However, incitement can be a legitimate concern because there must be limits to freedom of speech. You are not allowed to scream for instance “Fire Fire!!!” in a crowded theatre therebye causing a panic. You should not be allowed to teach hatred towards Jews when these words will be translated into anti-Semitic attacks.

Taken to the extreme, your logic would execute the soldier carrying out the order to murder but excuse the general for simply giving the order. After all, its only words!

(36)
al,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

free speech

Thank you for this article. There are several people to whom I have been trying to explain what it means to really believe in free speech. This article should give them the message.

(35)
Joey,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I have to agree with Mr. Jacoby; Mr. Irving should be ostracized, criticized, and challenged by every clear-thinking human being for his denial of the Holocaust, and be made to explain how exactly he knows it was faked. No academic institution should accept him as credible. But I don't think it's right to deny his right to free speech, and jail him for his idiocy. God bless!

(34)
Eli Willner,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Is freedom of speech a Jewish value?

Mr. Jacoby brings American values to bear on the question of the proper response to David Irving's poison. But American values are irrelevant to believing Jews. I'm disappointed that Aish did not provide a perspective that brings Torah values to bear on the issue. I'm not qualified to do so, but will remark that in Judaism what matters is responsibilities, not freedoms. Clearly Mr. Irving is not using his power of speech responsibly, and how he should be dealt with needs to be considered in that light, not in light of his "freedoms".

(33)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree

Not only does it violate freedom, secondarily it legitimizes his viewpoint by making him a martyr to many followers and those "on the fence". And indirectly give more sympathy to Islamist extremist who's interests lie in the promotion of alleged Jewish power and influence over politics and media.

(32)
MOSHE GEWIRTZ,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I'M SORRY TO SAY , YOU ARE SO RIGHT

FUNNY THING. JUST 5 MINUTES AGO, I COULD NOT HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOU MORE.

(31)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

David Irving's imprisonment

I totally disagree with Jeff Jacoby. David Irving is scum and fully deserves his prison sentence.

(30)
miriam neumeier,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

irving does not deny an idea or political conception, he denies a terrible FACT, 6 million dead jews, for that he should rot in hell, as we jews have no hell, prison has to do the job

(29)
Chaim Twerski,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Freedom of speech is limited by need for truth

Freedom of the press has been taken by many beyond its logical limits. The case of crying "fire" in a crowded theater was meant only to use an egregious example, not to define its limit. The power of the press is enormous, and to the extent that this power changes society it needs to be held within limits. A free press is a necessity for the sake of exposing corruption where it exists in government and to introduce ideas for societal improvements that may not have the backing of government leadership. But in all this, one element must be held sacrosanct- truth. It is empirically true that the average reader believes factual statements that are printed in the press or reported by the news media. When a publication presents falsehoods as the truth, then that publication is guilty of a grievous crime, and depending on the potential harm that his falsehood could inflict, a harm that is deserving of severe punishment. When such lies are directed against an individual it is called libel, and when directed against a community it is libel to the enth power. While libel is considered merely a tort in some societies, it is quite understandable for libel to be considered by a society as a serious felony. In fact, the early defenders of freedom of the press insisted that the potential of the charge of libel and its consequences is the correct curb to insure that this freedom does not do more harm to society than good. David Irving lied and knew that he was lying. The harm that a publishing historian can do by whitewashing an enormous crime is incalculable. Holding journalists and publications responsible when guilty of disseminating fabrications that have the potential for serious societal evils is just and necessary.

(28)
Ya'akov,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

That's right

I agrre with Mr. Jaoby. My cousins and uncles helped liberate some of the camps. Theri stories produced nightmares when I was a child. And, made me ashamed of my German heritage to this day.
Still, Irving shouldn't be jailed. Free speech is fundamental to a healthy society.
Government becomes too scary and heavy handed when free speech is denied to those we dislike and/or disagree with.

(27)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

You say "a government that can make the expression of Holocaust denial a crime today can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow" That is exactly how I feel. And how can we expect future generations to believe the holocaust happened if they are only allowed to hear one history. Would you believe a history of the American War of Independence if you were only allowed to hear one side of it? I wouldn't.

(26)
Michael Makovi,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree with the article

I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff Jacoby. Irving is obviously despicable and evil. But how can it be a crime to be evil? The government can ban evil action and speech advocating evil action, but to ban evil opinions and thoughts is entirely different.

Irving's speech, while disgusting, does not advocate a(nother) Holocaust, nor any other call to antisemitism. While groups such as the KKK both revile blacks and organize acts of persecution, Irving's speeches do not call for any such similar action.

I ask, should we be jailing those who in speech are racist (such as by calling blacks derogatory names), but not in action or call to action?

I hope justice is done for Irving: release from prison.

(25)
Hans,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Disagree

While free speech ist something to preserve the law is something to be followed. Just because you don't like a certain provision of law does not entitle you to act against it. In the so called so free United States there are so many things forbidden by law which are rightful in Europe that I do not think this is something the US can judge on. Irving belongs where he is.

(24)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree with Mr. Jacoby 100%

While Mr. Irving's rhetoric disgusts me, I will defend his right to say them. I guess they don't have freedom of speech in Austria!

(23)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

The man is a vile creep, and deserves to be kept away from the population in general. How soon we forget that if you scream fire loudly and long enough, people do beleive it.

(22)
Anna,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

But if not prison, then what ?

As someone who has met Auschwitz survivors, I can't say that I'm not pleased that he has finally got what was coming to him.

If he had said that the Holocaust was the best thing that ever happened & those Yids had it coming ha ha, that would be an opinion & might come under freedom of speech.

What he said was libel & slander & that ought not to come under freedom of speech. I see a huge difference between thinking that something was okay & denying that it ever happened, slandering the millions who were murdered by saying that they have spent the years since then snug as bugs in Palestine (odd that nobody noticed a few million extra arriving, or that 6,000,000 could leave a comparatively small part of Europe unnoticed !)by implying that THEY are liars and fraudsters. I have even heard that the films are fakes-who in their right mind would be so keen to be a film extra that they would get into that state ? Not me, anyway, not even if I was the star of the film & got millions for doing it. Well, possibly then. But I believe that Herr Irving has got what he has been asking for.

Odd that he discovered that he might have been mistaken just before the court case. What a coincidence.

I only hope that a few Jewish heavy-weight boxers are inside with him (for minor offences, of course) and that some share his cell.

As Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair said, 'Revenge may be wicked, but it's natural.'

(21)
T Davis,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I can't agree with this sentiment

I am sure the author holds this view with the best of intentions. However, I have thought about the issue and come to a different opinion. Evil springs from evil ideas. An idea that inverts historical truth ceases to be an idea and becomes a lie. If libel merits exception because it defames the truth about an individual, then surely Holocaust denial is a much wider defamation fo truth, affecting a whole People. We already have the next idea that is said to be so fundamental as to justify mass extermination. Militant islam also wishes to invert the truth of Holocaust and should not be permitted to lean on the crutch of pseudo intellectual liars in the west, of which Irving is the poster boy.

(20)
Brocha,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Breaking The Peace

No man or woman should be denied the right to state his own mind. If a person's opinion or comments harm or ignite hostilities between people then that person has lost his right to free speech and must be punished for his poisonous words. A person who denies the Holocaust and publicizes his denial is igniting fury among the Jews and giving arsenal to every antisemite in the wortld.

(19)
Brig Gen(ret)Muhammad Aslam Khan Niazi,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Fine comments....add or subtract a bit

The author has taken a very fine plea....for 'Austria' sake and also burried for ever any chance of nurturing this episode as a tool for 'hate'propagation in a later point of time by 'whosoever' be concerned.I was equally struck by David Irving sentencing and a thought flashed to conclude that such a mootable treatment may block his reconciliation abilities for ever even if at a belated stage he endeavoured to make recourse to pragmatism.Good job done, Jeff Jacoby

(18)
Ginger,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Totally in Agreement with you.

As repugnant as his comment is, he has a right to it. Austria is punishing him for her own thoughts and making him a scapegoat. BUT By bringing lots of attention to him the lie lives on that their never was a Holocaust!

(17)
Olie,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Hate Crimes Come From...?

Commit a hate crime and go to jail, which one should if they do it. But, where does the Hate come from? Hate come from Lies and perverted belief's that makes one dislike another for whatever reason. Unchecked hatred of another usually ends up as incitment and anger which proceeds into the Hate crime itself. If a Hate crime can put one in jail, then those who subscribe to that hatred should be held responsible at some point. Hate crimes will never stop until the Hatred itself is called to the carpet. Public Hate speech that incites others to commit Hate crimes needs to finally be brought to accountability with quick and severe punishment.

(16)
Lowe,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Irony

If you look at the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site you will find information about 40 Austrian Nazi suspects still living in the country. There have been no war crimes trials since 1975. This means that a liar (a foreigner) receives 3 years in prison but the state grants de facto immunity to Austrians who were allegedly involved in Holocaust crimes.

(15)
David S. Levine,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

The European Legal Tradition

The European legal tradition does not provide an absolute gurantee of free speech and even our right of free speech in the USA is subject to reasonable regularion. The nations of Austria and Germany want to be on record as regretful for what was done in their names during World War II and express their regret in this manner. That Irving's case came to trial during the cartoon controvercy is a fortuitous event. Perhaps Mr. Irving should serve a few weeks and be expelled form the European Union nations forever. That would not silence him but would constitute the right balance of disgust mixed with a respect for free speech.

(14)
daniela,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

if words are so irrelevant....

if you consider words and speech so irrelevant, pause an instant and think what human beings would be without it. Unless you believe there is not much difference between a man and a dog (which of course implies that men don't really have moral obligation, and for sure don't need bother repairing and improving the world), I am sure you will immediately grasp why there should be no such thing as "free hate speech". By the way, if you quickly compute which fraction of the U.S.A. society is deprived of REAL freedom - the freedom of improving themselves and the world, that is to say, to live as real humans and not as dogs - along with this free speech illusory b.s., you may start to understand why most other nations enact laws otherwise.
Besides those very practical considerations, I don't think there's much point in appealing to Mr. Jacoby's religious culture, but perhaps aish.com staff, who published the article (I am sure for discussion's sake) can elaborate on the subject with far more capacity than myself.

(13)
anna,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Thank you

I enjoed the article ,and as painfula s it is,could not agree more!
Thanks

(12)
Bob Burg,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Criticism of this article is unjustified

With all respect to "Mordipa" (the second of the "Visitor Comments"), you have totally taken what Mr. Jacoby wrote out of context. In his article, he covered your objections in both your second and third paragraphs.

And, Mr. Hakohen (the first of the "Visitor Comments"), there is never a wrong time to defend the "right" of freedom of speech. It is the hallmark of a free society. It is protection "From" the Haman's of the world because "Freedom of Speech" precludes the *government* (and that's what Haman was)from prosecuting and persecuting people - such as Jews - for what they say and write.

Yes, Irving is - by most anyone's definition - a horrible, horrible human being. However, as long as he is not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre or ordering a crime to be committed he does in fact have the right to say or write whatever he'd like, repugnant as it is.

(11)
tovah,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

freedome of speech for irving is like a blood libel

he should be in jail, because if he is not all the anti-semtic people not only deny the holocust they will also beat up jews and kill them for lying about the holocust. i think irving belongs in jail.

(10)
fallaci,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

david irving

Irving is a cretin , I do not give a fig from him being locked up . What I really care about now is that Austria will use the spoken or written truth about islam and mohammed , will find themselves carted away into jail .Not that I care about Austria , a country of hypocrites and anti-semitics who are a hairsbreath away from submitting to the cult of islam and paying the tax.

(9)
aaron fox,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

i agree completely

i agree so much that i think aish should sponser some sort of petition for his immediate release.

(8)
Anonymous,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

nonsence

This is the kind of holier than thou nonsence than drives peole crazy. He had plans to be in Iran helping them deny the holocaust. His plans were thwarted. Good.

(7)
matis,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I agree with Jeff

In Israel they also have a law that makes it illegal to insult a government official or a politician. Always used against the right and never the left, of course.

(6)
S ZANE,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

I BELIEVE DAVID SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER THE SAME ENVIREMENT AND CONDITIONS THAT THE HOLOCAUST CONDITIONS EXISTED. IN THE WORST WEATHER.

(5)
Don Arsenault,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Ignore the hate monger.

What an elegant statement of the freedom most Americans hold their most dear. The peace in the knowledge I am able to critisize my government without fear of Vopos, Gestapo etc. banging on my door that night. For freedom of speech to mean anything we must protect the rights of those whose verbal poison causes our blood to boil and dishonors our kindred dead. I have noticed though, the best answer to their nonsensical hate is no answer. My people are often vilified by one hate monger or another and yet we say little or nothing. Soon they have vanished from the stage to ply their hate elsewhere. Notice how the howls of protests and violence from many Muslums has only resulted in the thing which they hated being multiplied ten fold. Thyey have done themselves no favor and there is a lesson for us all in Mr. Jacoby's wise counsel.

A thought: I read Rab Hakohen's comment with great interest. Haman's case is not a matter of free speech. The hated Haman went past words to action. He deceived the king, lied on a righteous people and finally paid blood money to assure his wicked plans came to fruit. For this all mankind shall curse him through the ages.

(4)
Keith,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Tell a lie long enough.

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it" a quote of one adolf hitler. There are different types of untruths, if someone were to sing the praises of the tooth fairy this could hardly be discribed as endangering anyone,however denying the holocaust and praising the virtues of hitler is not akin to simply disagreeing with another. Words such as Irving's are what motivate extreme hatred and what follows. Having lived in Northern Ireland all my life, I have lost count of the number of times words have led directly to someone's death, surely words such as these are criminal.

(3)
Athol,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Good article

Thank you Jeff for this article. How would we feel if our proZionist ideas are considered illegal and one would be imprisoned for them? I come from a very assimilated anglo-Jewish family and i grew up in an area in Australia that had very few Jews. When I was a teenager I was given revisionist literature of David Irving and others and it seemed very convincing on the surface. However as I got older I interacted with other Jews more and met people from Holocaust survivor families. This changed my thinking and now I am very ashamed ofmy past views. Argument and especially the testimonies of survivors are very important in combatting this thinking not imprisoning those who hold different views. There are many like I was who held such views sincerely and I knew many other good people who did as well. speaking the truth is the way to reach these people who have not harmed or who don't intend to harm others. Of course there are those that move from this thinking to harming others.Then the law should intervene and imprison.

Cheers Athol

(2)
Helen F. Stanbro,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

Right on!

Your article is absolutely right on! Especially coming from someone whose family has suffered the evils denied by Irving, it has special force and poignance. It is a testimonial to the human spirit (and Divine gift) that made the Holocaust victims the real victors, because they glorified the Name by dying for freedom and righteousness while their would-be conquerors sank below even the most minimal standards of decency. It is indeed sad that Austria has learned nothing from its experience. I wrote a letter in protest of the laws which made the Irving conviction possible, and received a form letter from the Austrian embassy justifying their conduct for the reasons you mentioned above. How unconscious can they be, not to see that it is the same line of sick thinking that allowed the Nazis to justify their despicable deeds---basic human rights must be sacrificed to social tidyness! As an American, I agree fully with your estimation of the value of the First Amendment, and I fear for my country as I see these rights being called into question via the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism legislation. It will be a sad day for humanity if we join the peace-at-any-price and safety-above-all cowards who value security more than human dignity. I hope somehow that the trend can be reversed and that all nations can sincerely subscribe to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which Article 19 asserts: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Thank you for having the objectivity, fairness, and courage to rise above your personal emotions and grief to follow the directive, "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue." (Deut. 16:20) May you receive the blessing you deserve.

(1)
yehoshua halevi,
March 5, 2006 12:00 AM

wisdom and discretion

let's look at what supreme court chief justice louis brandeis said: it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. why? because the result of that speech could cause bodily harm or death. irving and others like him cross the line. why? because that particular kind of hate speech can and does lead to violence. one of the main arugments against the arab world is for them to stop the incitement and hate speech against jews and israel. thruout jewish history, violence has been preceeded by concerted hate speech: in europe, the preachers would exhort people about "jews and the devil" or about jews and the blood of christian children. and then they'd tell them to go out and kill the jews. is anybody surprised at what happenned? same in nazi germany. and look what's been happening in the arab world with their "religion of peace". kinda reminds you of not too long ago with the "religion of love" doesn't it?

it's one thing to say: i don't like what these people are doing. it's another to say "go kill them" or "the history of them being killed is a lie". one must use discretion/wisdom and maturity looking at history in an intelligent way to make these decisions.

i usually love jacoby's pieces and think he provides a very very valuable voice and service; however, in this case, the stakes are too high and the principle is too important for me not to respond.

mr.hakohen's first comment is worth considering in depth: at the time of purim, king ahashverosh ruled the entire world. the barber/bath-house attendant haman was able to sway large numbers of people to agree with hate and destruction. (please see "esther" by reb nachman of breslov (breslov.org).

at this point in history and at this point in the calendar we must choose life and wisdom by not allowing the purveyors of hate,lies and destruction to prevail.

I live in rural Montana where the Cholov Yisrael milk is difficult to obtain and very expensive. So I drink regular milk. What is your view on this?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Jewish law requires that there be rabbinic supervision during the milking process to ensure that the milk comes from a kosher animal. In the United States, many people rely on the Department of Agriculture's regulations and controls as sufficiently stringent to fulfill the rabbinic requirement for supervision.

Most of the major Kashrut organizations in the United States rely on this as well. You will therefore find many kosher products in America certified with a 'D' next to the kosher symbol. Such products – unless otherwise specified on the label – are not Cholov Yisrael and are assumed kosher based on the DOA's guarantee.

There are many, however, do not rely on this, and will eat only dairy products that are designated as Cholov Yisrael (literally, "Jewish milk"). This is particularly true in large Jewish communities, where Cholov Yisrael is widely available.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that under limited conditions, such as an institution which consumes a lot of milk and Cholov Yisrael is generally unavailable or especially expensive, American milk is acceptable, as the government supervision is adequate to prevent non-kosher ingredients from being added.

It should be added that the above only applies to milk itself, which is marketed as pure cow's milk. All other dairy products, such as cheeses and butter, may contain non-kosher ingredients and always require kosher certification. In addition, Rabbi Feinstein's ruling applies only in the United States, where government regulations are considered reliable. In other parts of the world, including Europe, Cholov Yisrael is a requirement.

There are additional esoteric reasons for being stringent regarding Cholov Yisrael, and because of this it is generally advisable to consume only Cholov Yisroel dairy foods.

In 1889, 800 Jews arrived in Buenos Aires, marking the birth of the modern Jewish community in Argentina. These immigrants were fleeing poverty and pogroms in Russia, and moved to Argentina because of its open door policy of immigration. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Juan Peron's rise to power in 1946 was an ominous sign, as he was a Nazi sympathizer with fascist leanings. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina, introduced mandatory Catholic religious instruction in public schools, and allowed Argentina to become a haven for fleeing Nazis. (In 1960, Israeli agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from a Buenos Aires suburb.) Today, Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America with 250,000, though terror attacks have prompted many young people to emigrate. In 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 32 people. In 1994, the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people. The perpetrators have never been apprehended.

Be aware of what situations and behaviors give you pleasure. When you feel excessively sad and cannot change your attitude, make a conscious effort to take some action that might alleviate your sadness.

If you anticipate feeling sad, prepare a list of things that might make you feel better. It could be talking to a specific enthusiastic individual, running, taking a walk in a quiet area, looking at pictures of family, listening to music, or reading inspiring words.

While our attitude is a major factor in sadness, lack of positive external situations and events play an important role in how we feel.

[If a criminal has been executed by hanging] his body may not remain suspended overnight ... because it is an insult to God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

Rashi explains that since man was created in the image of God, anything that disparages man is disparaging God as well.

Chilul Hashem, bringing disgrace to the Divine Name, is one of the greatest sins in the Torah. The opposite of chilul Hashem is kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the Divine Name. While this topic has several dimensions to it, there is a living kiddush Hashem which occurs when a Jew behaves in a manner that merits the respect and admiration of other people, who thereby respect the Torah of Israel.

What is chilul Hashem? One Talmudic author stated, "It is when I buy meat from the butcher and delay paying him" (Yoma 86a). To cause someone to say that a Torah scholar is anything less than scrupulous in meeting his obligations is to cause people to lose respect for the Torah.

Suppose someone offers us a business deal of questionable legality. Is the personal gain worth the possible dishonor that we bring not only upon ourselves, but on our nation? If our personal reputation is ours to handle in whatever way we please, shouldn't we handle the reputation of our nation and the God we represent with maximum care?

Jews have given so much, even their lives, for kiddush Hashem. Can we not forego a few dollars to avoid chilul Hashem?

Today I shall...

be scrupulous in all my transactions and relationships to avoid the possibility of bringing dishonor to my God and people.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...